overcoming energy poverty and inequality in asia and africa · 2018-06-18 · overcoming energy...
TRANSCRIPT
Overcoming energy poverty and inequality in Asia and Africa
French-Norwegian workshop on “Globalization, inequality and energy,” Oslo, Norway, June 11-12, 2018
Benjamin K. Sovacool, Ph.D
Director, Center for Energy Technologies, Denmark
Professor of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University
Professor of Energy Policy, University of Sussex
Director of the Center on Innovation and Energy Demand, United Kingdom
Data sources
• Sovacool, BK. “The Political Economy of Energy Poverty: A Review of Key Challenges,”
Energy for Sustainable Development 16(3) (September, 2012), pp. 272-282
• Sovacool, BK. “Deploying Off-Grid Technology to Eradicate Energy Poverty,” Science 338
(October 5, 2012), pp. 47-48.
• Sovacool, BK. “Design Principles for Renewable Energy Programs in Developing
Countries,” Energy & Environmental Science 5(11) (November, 2012), pp. 9157-9162.
• Sovacool, BK. “A Qualitative Factor Analysis of Renewable Energy and Sustainable
Energy for All (SE4ALL) in the Asia-Pacific,” Energy Policy 59 (August, 2013), pp. 393-
403.
• An introduction to energy poverty
• (Social science) research methods for a major
project
• Four Findings
• Technologies
• Business models
• Best practices
• Paradigms
Roadmap
Two traditional ways of measuring energy poverty:Number of people lacking
access to electricity (millions)
Number of people
relying on the
traditional use of
biomass for
cooking (millions)
Africa 587 657
Sub-Saharan
Africa
585 653
Asia 799 1,937
China 8 423
India 404 855
Other Asia 387 659
South America 31 85
World 1,441 2,679
Countries with the largest
population without access to
electricity, 2015
Countries with the largest
population relying on
traditional use of biomass for
cooking, 2015
Why it’s a poverty issue
Modern Energy Services and Income Generating Opportunities
Energy service New income opportunities Improvement of existing
activities
Opportunity cost saving
Lighting Street lighting enables
nighttime stalls and
entertainment
Later opening of restaurants,
cafés and shops
Creating opportunity for night-
time activities in increased
safety
Cooking Sales and distribution of
commercial modern fuels and
stoves
Cleaner and more cost-
effective cooking
Time saved in wood collection
and pot cleaning
Cooking Selling ice, ice-cream, etc.
New markets for refrigerated
products, e.g. milk
Less waste of agricultural and
fishery products, creating more
income
Reduced time and energy
spent keeping goods fresh or
felling intensively in a short
period
Heating Process heat for new industrial
processes
Improves comfort in hotels and
cafés
Time saved in collecting wood
for heating
ICTs Internet cafés, mobile phone
charging, radio stations
Finding best prices at various
markets
Reduced travel time
associated with
communication
Irrigation Growing new kinds of crops Better yields on existing land
compared with rain-fed
agriculture
Less time spent mutually
watering crops
Agro-processing Adding value by refining
agricultural products
Increasing throughput and
lowering costs
Less time spent manually
grinding/pounding etc.
Manufacturing Welding and metalwork
enables
Improved quality and speed of
carpentry
Time saved by mechanisation
of repetitive designs
Why it’s an environmental issue
Burden of Disease Attributable to 20 Leading
Risk Factors in 20 for Both Sexes (percent of
Disability Adjusted Life Years)
Why it’s a health
issue
Why it’s a public health issue:
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Malaria Tuberculosis Indoor airpollution
HIV/AIDS
Mil
lio
ns
2008
2030
Annual Deaths Worldwide by Cause, 2008 and 2030
Why it’s a “justice” or “equity” issue:
Why it’s a gender and empowerment issue:
Annual Differences Between Women and Men in Tanzania for Chores and
Hauling Items
Why it’s a gender and empowerment issue:
Why it’s an educational issue
Source: Sovacool, BK and SE Ryan. “The Geography of Energy and Education: Leaders,
Laggards, and Lessons for Achieving Primary and Secondary School Electrification,”
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (May, 2016), pp. 107-123.
Research methods and
case (technology)
selection
Project really centered on asking:
› Within renewable energy access and development programs what works, what doesn’t, what are the best practices that transcend geography?
Technology Characteristics Typical Production Costs
(U.S. cents/kWh)
Mini-hydro 100 to 1,000 kW 5-12
Micro-hydro 1 to 100 kW 7-30
Pico-hydro 0.1 to 1 kW 20-40
Biogas digester 6 to 8 cubic meters 3-14
Biomass gasifier 20 to 5,000 kW 8-12
Small wind turbine 3 to 100 kW 15-25
Household wind turbine 0.1 to 3 kW 15-35
Village-scale mini-grid 10 to 1,000 kW 25-100
Solar home system 20 to 100 Wp 40-60
Improved cookstove - -
Why renewable energy? Better LCOE compared to
existing technologies (sometimes the grid, sometimes
candles or kerosene):
Type Mitigation Benefits Adaptation Benefits Social and economic
development benefits
Biomass Reduced use of charcoal and
fuelwood, less pressure on
natural resources
Reduces the likelihood of
deforestation and
desertification
Creation of jobs and livelihood
opportunities, reduced
drudgery, reduction of
incidents related to indoor air
pollution and respiratory
infections
Wind Decreased dependence on
wood and biomass,
avoidance of carbon dioxide
emissions
Greater resilience through
reduced vulnerability to water
scarcity, more adaptation
choices through irrigated
agriculture
Greater prospects for income
generation, improved quality
of life, reduced risks of vector
born diseases, improved
water supply and food
security, reduced migratory
fluxes, improved school
attendance (especially for
girls)
Biogas plants Reduced use of pesticides
and fertilizers
Adapting to soil erosion,
aridity, and environmental
degradation
Better prospectus for
agricultural productivity and
income generation
Solar home systems Reduced consumption of
fuelwood, kerosene, and
batteries, improved local air
quality
Improved education through
illuminated studying and
access to information and
communication technology
Improved quality of life as well
as better health and
sanitation through streetlights
and boiled water
Microhydro Reduced greenhouse gases,
protection of land cover
Improved social resilience Improved health, greater
school attendance
To say nothing of other positive externalities:
Microhydro dams
22
22
23
Solar home systems
24
24
Biogas digesters
Small-scale wind turbines
28
Improved or clean cookstoves
30
30
Case selection (from 1000+ to 10):
• 441 research interviews and meetings with 189 institutions over the course of
four years, anonymous • Government agencies such as the Nepal Ministry of Energy, Indonesian Ministry of
Finance, Indian Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Chinese Ministry of Science
and Technology, or Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority;
• Intergovernmental organizations such as the South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation, the Global Environment Facility, and the United Nations Development
Programme;
• International civil society organizations or think tanks, including Conservation
International, Friends of the Earth, Transparency International, and the Stockholm
Environmental Institute;
• Local civil society organizations or think tanks, including Grameen Shakti, Yayasan
Pelangi Indonesia, and Pragati Pratishthan;
• Electricity suppliers including the Nepal Electricity Authority, Tenaga Nasional Berhad in
Malaysia, Ceylon Electricity Board in Sri Lanka, and Papua New Guinea Power Limited;
• Manufacturers, industry groups, and commercial retailers such as Alstrom Hydro,
Barefoot Power Systems, Sime Darby, Siemens, and Sunlabob;
• Financiers and bilateral development donors including Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Technische Zusammenarbeit, United States Agency for International Development, the
Asian Development Bank, and the World Bank Group; and
• Universities and research institutes including the International Center for Integrated
Mountain Development, University of Dhaka, University of Papua New Guinea, and the
Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Data collection process
• Supplemented with 90 renewable
energy site facilities in the ten
countries
• Variety of sources, systems,
sizes, and capacities
• Research laboratories
• Testing centers
• Factories
• Assembly lines
• Public and private
• Plus focus group discussions with
almost 800 community members
• Households
• Village leaders
• Political representatives
• Triangulated with a second, in-
depth literature review of peer-
reviewed and internet sources
(especially project documents)
Data collection process
Finding (1): A
complexity of optimal
technologies and energy
services
35
Economic Competitiveness of Wind, Biomass, and Small Hydropower in India
Source: World Bank. The economic costs of generation include all capital, operational,
and financial expenses and exclude all taxes and subsidies
Finding (2): Policy
mechanisms or
business models can be
just as important as
technology
Model Description Example
Technology improvement and market development
A sort of “supply push” structure where
the PPP develops a renewable energy technology to reduce costs
China’s Renewable Energy Development Program
End-user microfinance A sort of “demand pull” which gives loans
to energy users to that they can purchase renewable energy equipment
Grameen Shakti in Bangladesh
Project finance Where small- and medium-scale projects
are supported with loans and financial assistance from commercial banks
Energy Services Delivery Project in Sri Lanka
Cooperative Where communities own renewable energy systems themselves
Cinta Mekar Microhydro Project in Indonesia
Community mobilization fund Where revenues from renewable
electricity or energy production are invested back into local communities
Microhydro Village
Electrification Scheme in Nepal
Energy services company (ESCO) “fee-for-service”
Where private sector enterprises
purchase technology and then charge
consumers only for the renewable energy “service” that results
Zambia’s PV-ESCO Project
Hybrid (cross-subsidization and ESCO)
Where tariffs on one type of electricity are
then funneled into a fund to support renewable energy
The Rural Electrification Project in Laos
Hybrid (end-user microfinance and ESCO “fee-for-service”)
Where private sector enterprises
purchase technology and then charge
consumers only for the renewable energy “service” that results
India’s Solar Lantern Project
Finding (3): Best
practices or design
principles do exist
Lesson Factor Ban
glad
esh
China Laos Mongolia Nepal Sri
Lanka
India Indonesi
a
Malaysia Papua
New
Guinea
Appropriate
Technology
Feasibility studies X X X X X X
Scaling up X X X
Service rather
than technology
orientation
X X X X X X
Technical
standards and
certification
X X X
Cultural sensitivity X X X X X X
Community
Commitme
nt
Community
ownership/operati
on/participation
X X X X X X
Minority/gender
empowerment
X X X
Monetary
contributions
(cash, savings,
collateral)
X X X X
Non-monetary
contributions
(time, labor, land,
materials)
X X
Lesson Factor Ban
glad
esh
China Laos Mongoli
a
Nepal Sri
Lanka
India Indonesi
a
Malaysia Papua
New
Guinea
Awareness
Raising
Marketing and
promotion
X X X X X X X X X
Demonstration X X X X X
After-sales
Service
Product
guarantees/warra
nties/buy back
X X X
Training/funds for
maintenance
X X X X X X
Income
Generatio
n
Classes in
productive end-
use
X X X X X X X X
Scholarships X
Institution
al
Diversity
Involvement of
non-state-
actors/private
sector
X X X X X X X X X
Polycentricity X X X X X X
Cost sharing X X X X X X
Avoidance of
corruption
X
Lesson Factor Bangla
desh
China Laos Mongoli
a
Nepal Sri
Lanka
India Indonesi
a
Malaysia Papua
New
Guinea
Affordability Provision of
credit/microcre
dit/ ESCO “fee-
for-service”
model
X X X X X X X X X
Revenue
collection
X X X X
Support for
manufacturing/
industry
X X
Lower
programmatic
costs
X X X
Capacity
Building
Institution
building
X X X X X X
Outsourcing X
Improved
business
practices
(accounting,
auditing,
revenue
collection,
marketing)
X X X X
Self-sufficiency X X X X X
Lesson Factor Ban
glad
esh
China Laos Mongoli
a
Nepal Sri
Lanka
India Indonesi
a
Malaysi
a
Papua
New
Guinea
Flexibility Diversity of eligible
technologies
X X X X X X
Follow-up project X X X X
Promotion of both
grid/off-grid systems
X X X X
Adjusted
targets/extended
deadline
X X X X X X X X
Evaluatio
n and
Monitorin
g
Independent
evaluator
X X X X X X X X X
Penalties for
noncompliance
X X X X X
Political
Support
Policy integration X X X X X X X
Dedicated or
experienced
implementing agency
X X X X X X
Project
champion/political
leadership
X X X X X X
Finding (4): Consider a
new paradigm of energy
access
A newer “paradigm” of energy access and development
seems to work best
• Multi-scalar: involving households,
neighborhoods, and city/village councils as well as
state planners, national regulators, and
international donors
• Multi-institutional: not just a single type of actor
(consumer or supplier), but faith based groups,
environmental think tanks, renewable energy
suppliers, inventors and innovators, etc.
• Multi-sectoral: electricity and energy as well as
agriculture, education, public health, and gender
equity (to name a few)
• Multi-dimensional: a variety of energy end-use
services (see next slide)
In sum: energy access is:
Not until the creation and maintenance of
decent conditions of life for all people are
recognized and accepted as a common
obligation of all people and all countries—
not until then shall we, with a certain
degree of justification, be able to speak of
mankind as civilized.